Articles Posted inTruck Accidents

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued an interesting opinion in a truck accident case that required the court to determine if the company that employed a truck driver who was responsible for a serious accident could be liable for punitive damages. Ultimately, the court concluded that under some other set of facts, punitive damages may be appropriate, but, given the facts presented in this specific case, they were not.

The Facts of the Case

In 2014, the plaintiffs were driving through a construction zone on Interstate 14 when they were struck by a truck. The plaintiffs filed a personal injury lawsuit against the trucking company that employed the driver, arguing that the company was liable for the driver’s actions because he was an employee working within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the company was negligent for hiring the truck driver in the first place, given the driver’s checkered past. The plaintiffs sought punitive damages on each claim.

In support of their negligent hiring claim, the plaintiffs introduced evidence that the truck driver had previously been convicted of drug offenses and had a significant history of traffic offenses. There was also a report that the truck driver had been found to be traveling at 99 miles per hour while on the job just a week prior to the accident.

Large trucks are made to bring goods across the country, and as a result, they are specifically designed to carry large amounts of cargo on the nation’s highways. However, at the beginning and end of a truck driver’s journey, he or she will at some point have to drive on smaller surface streets.

Driving on small city streets can present difficulties for many truck drivers, whose rigs may be upwards of 70 feet long and may consist of several trailers being towed by a single truck. For example, many city intersections are much smaller than truck drivers are used to navigating, and they may require special maneuvers to safely negotiate them. In addition, the presence of pedestrians and bicyclists presents additional hazards that truck drivers must take precautions to avoid.

Despite the additional difficulties of driving on smaller roads, truck drivers remain responsible for safely operating their vehicles and may be held liable when they cause an accident on city streets. Of course, some accidents may be unavoidable even with the exercise of due caution, and truck drivers are not likely to be responsible for these. However, when a truck driver’s negligence or inexperience results in an accident, the truck driver – and potentially their employer – may be held liable for any injuries that result.

Truck drivers operate some of the most dangerous vehicles on the road, and as a result they have a heightened duty to those with whom they share the road. One of truck drivers’ most obvious duties is to safely operate their vehicles while on public roads. This includes remaining free from the effects of drugs or alcohol, getting enough rest to be fully aware while driving, and also paying full attention to their surroundings.

When a truck driver fails to live up to this standard, the likelihood of causing an accident greatly increases. When an accident does occur, the accident victim may be entitled to monetary compensation for their injuries from the truck driver and potentially the driver’s employer.

Trucking companies are not liable in every truck accident case; however, they can often be named as additional defendants when the accident victim can show that there was some negligence on the employer’s part, or the truck driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. This may also be appropriate when the truck supplied by the employer had a dangerous defect, or the employer failed to conduct an adequate background check of the employee prior to hiring him.

After any accident, an injured motorist and any passengers are entitled to file a personal injury lawsuit against the party they believe to be at fault for causing the accident. In many cases involving private citizens named as defendants, the process is a fairly straightforward one, requiring only that the motorcyclist prove that the defendant’s negligence caused their injuries. However, when the at-fault party is a government employee or contractor, there may be issues of immunity that must be overcome.

As a general rule, government agencies and their employees are entitled to immunity from personal injury lawsuits arising out of any actions related to the performance of a government function. While this seems like an extremely broad grant of immunity, the reality is that there are many exceptions to the general rule. For example, if a government employee is acting recklessly or is in violation of the law at the time of the accident, immunity will not likely attach.

Even if government immunity is not likely given the circumstances of the accident, it is advisable that anyone injured by a government employee contact a dedicated personal injury attorney prior to filing a case. For example, plaintiffs filing lawsuits against government agencies and their employees generally must comply with additional procedural requirements or risk that their case is prematurely dismissed.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Alabama issued a written opinion discussing the situations when a court should issue a default judgment when a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to the plaintiff’s claim. In the recent case, the appellate court ultimately reversed a lower court’s default judgment after applying a multi-factor test.

The Facts of the Case

The defendant, a semi-truck driver, was backing a load of logs into his driveway when the plaintiff crashed into his truck. At the time of the accident, the truck was blocking all of the lanes of travel. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, which the defendant failed to answer. After approximately three months, the court issued a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Two months after the default judgment was entered, the defendant submitted a motion to the court, asking it to set aside the judgment. In support of his motion, the defendant submitted an affidavit from a witness to the accident, stating that the defendant had taken reasonable precautions, including placing cones and using the truck’s four-way flashing lights. The defendant also claimed that, on the day of the accident, he notified his insurance company about the accident. The defendant explained that he thought this meant that the insurance company was investigating the accident and that no further action was needed on his part. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

Late last month, two republican lawmakers witnessed a major semi-truck accident and acted as first responders, providing assistance to the accident victims until emergency responders arrived. According to one local news source covering the accident, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Representative Joe Heck of Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District were on their way back to their hotel in West Virginia when they witnessed the accident.

Evidently, Heck, a board-certified physician, and Rubio witnessed a west-bound semi-truck cross the median after the driver had lost control. After crossing into the median, the truck then struck three cars traveling in the opposite direction. The two lawmakers stopped their vehicle and provided assistance until emergency responders arrived. They pulled one man out of an overturned car. Sadly, a 62-year-old man was pronounced dead by Heck as a result of the collision. The others injured in the semi-truck accident are expected to make a full recovery.

Police do not believe that drugs or alcohol were involved in the fatal accident. However, according to witnesses, it is possible that the semi-truck hydroplaned and lost control as a result, leading to the accident.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Ohio issued a written opinion dealing with that state’s “Good Samaritan Law.” In the case of Carter v. Reese, the court interpreted the law broadly, including anyone who performs any kind of emergency care. Importantly, the law covers anyone, rather than just medical professionals, as the plaintiff had argued.

The Facts of the Case

Carter was a truck driver. He arrived at his destination and began to unload the trailer he had been pulling. After he was done, he pulled his truck about four to six inches away from the loading dock and put it in park. As he made his way around the back of his truck and up to the loading dock, Carter fell. His leg became stuck between the loading dock and the truck.

At this time, Carter began calling for help because, while he didn’t feel any pain, he was unable to get his leg free. Reese heard Carter’s calls and responded. Carter told Reese to get into the cab of the truck and pull the truck forward so that Carter could free himself. Reese agreed but realized soon after he got into the cab that he didn’t know how to operate the rig. He attempted to rev the engine and move forward, but the truck slid backward instead, crushing Carter’s leg in the process.

According to a recent article, a driver was severely injured on a highway in Maine last month in an accident involving a tractor-trailer. The injured driver was driving behind the tractor-trailer in an SUV when the truck unexpectedly slowed and tried to turn around in a vehicle turnout reserved for police and other government vehicles. The injured driver swerved to avoid crashing into the rear of the tractor-trailer, but he lost control of the vehicle and crashed anyway. In the article, the Maine State Police stated that the driver of the truck faces criminal charges for endangering the life of another driver.

In Maryland, drivers who cause a serious bodily injury to other drivers may face criminal charges. Drivers may also be liable for damages in civil court if the driver is found to be negligent. A driver is negligent if he or she fails to take reasonable care while operating a motor vehicle, and this failure causes an injury to another person.

Maryland law provides for two types of damages. Economic damages compensate injured drivers or passengers for out-of-pocket costs like lost wages, unpaid medical expenses, and decreased future earnings. Non-economic damages, which are sometimes referred to as damages for “pain and suffering,” are also available to injured parties who can no longer enjoy life as they did before being injured.

Of the many causes of truck accidents, equipment failures are among the more common. Large trucks rely on a number of components and systems to run properly. If any one of these systems is compromised, the truck may not operate according to the driver’s expectations. Obviously, this can then result in the truck driver losing control of the vehicle, resulting in a serious or fatal truck accident.

Due to the risks inherent in operating a large truck, the law places a duty on all truck drivers to maintain their vehicles in a safe manner. The level of the duty somewhat depends on which type of truck is being operated and which cargo is being transported. For example, truck drivers transporting hazardous materials have an increased duty to maintain their vehicles in a safe condition to avoid the spilling of the hazardous cargo.

Generally speaking, a truck driver’s duty to inspect and maintain his vehicle extends to the systems that are easily inspected and those for which failure can result in serious problems in the vehicle’s operation. These systems include the tires, brakes, cargo area, and lights and signals. If an accident is caused by a truck driver’s failure to inspect his vehicle, that driver may be held financially liable for the injuries caused as a result. This may even be the case if the truck driver was not issued a traffic citation.

Truck drivers have an enormous responsibility. With loaded rigs weighing up to 40 tons, the trucks these drivers operate are massive, difficult to steer, and prone to causing mayhem if not properly controlled. For these reasons, federal and state laws act to regulate the trucking industry, requiring drivers to obtain special licenses, register their cargo and route, and constantly ensure that their rig is in safe working condition. In addition, truck drivers must also follow the rules of the road that apply to all motorists, such as refraining from drunk or distracted driving.

When there is a lapse in judgment, or an oversight on the part of a truck driver, the driver may be held liable in a Maryland personal injury lawsuit. These lawsuits, brought under the theory of negligence, require an accident victim to show that there was some negligent act or omission that caused the accident that resulted in the victim’s injuries. If this is successfully proven, an accident victim may receive compensation for their medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering they endured as a result of the accident.

Truck Accident Caused by Sleeping Driver

Earlier this month in North Carolina, 50,000 pounds of potatoes spilled onto the road after a semi-truck driver crashed into a barrier and rolled the truck onto its side. According to one local news source covering the accident, the truck driver was traveling on Interstate 77 at around 2 a.m. when the accident occurred.

Disclaimer: While all of the cases identified in the Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers website under Our Successes are cases that Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers has handled for its clients, Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers does not represent any of the clients in cases mentioned in our blog. Our law firm is reporting on current events that will likely be of interest to our readers. The content provided is not intended as legal advice.

Our past results are not a guarantee of future results, and they should not be used to predict an outcome in any future case or matter. The merits of each case must be determined based upon the facts and the applicable law of each particular case. Lebowitz & Mzhen Personal Injury Lawyers is a law firm with lawyers licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland, and a lawyer licensed to practice law in Washington, D.C.